Cadillac Powertrain Control Module (PCM) Tuning Discussion, 93 to 95 Northstar Tuning in Cadillac Engine Technical Discussion; Hmmm! Ok so what kind of package could you put together?
Yeah! it cost money to play and if your ...

Re: 93 to 95 Northstar Tuning

Yeah! it cost money to play and if your the only one making go fast parts you can kinda set your own price because your not competing with any other company.

So It sound like your want to start a side biz. So like everone else you going to have to put Packages together. Dyno number and so on. There a nitch no one doing it yet. Keep it cheap and everyone will be buying. You will make all your money in the mass's. The guys that have car but not tons of cash.

So like I said the guy that has total performance package is going to be the man! chips, cams, performance goodies IE porting and the cool shiny stuff for the bling wow factor! and if you take it one more step and do body kits ground efects.

Just look at LMC or Yearone all the resto or custom part any one could ever want.

Re: 93 to 95 Northstar Tuning

Q1: "If your PCM is limiting you to XXX ft lbs torque and you build the motor to make 5000 ft lbs how much torque will the PCM allow?" Ans. XXX ft lbs.

Q2:"If you make 100 hp at 2000 rpm and 275hp at 6000 stock Y engine SAE report
If I can make 130 to 150 hp at 2000 and 275 at 6000 does it make more power? Ans. Yes, because, over time (i.e., the rev band or power band) you make more power over stock because Torque = (HPx5252)/RPM. Low down at 2000 RPM you're making from 341 ft-lbs (@130 HP) to 394 ft-lbs (@150HP) compared to stock of 263 ft-lbs. At 6000 RPM both tuned and stock motors share 240.7 ft-lbs. A quick linear graph (attached below as: VIN Y motor (stock vs AJxtcman).gif) shows more torque over RPM (i.e., rev band or power band) for the tuned motor (please note: this graph is way over-simplified with no curves but proves the point nonetheless). For reference, a 1994 VIN Y puts out max 300 ft-lbs at 4400 RPM, which doesn't help the stock motor's situation when comparing it to the tuned motors.

Q3:"If you make 80hp @ 200 and 292 @ 6300 Stock 9 engine SAE report
If I make 130hp to 150 hp @ 2000 and 275hp @ 6300 does mine make less power?" Ans. I'm tired, but it looks like the same situation as Q2, AJ's tune wins the game by using the same old torque math equation above. For the stock "9" engine: 80HP@2000RPM = 210 lb-ft and 292HP@6300RPM = 243 lb-ft. For the AJ-tuned "9" engine: 130-150HP@2000RPM = 341-394 lb-ft, respectively and 275HP@6300 = 229 lb-ft. Who care's if torque is puking out at 229 vs the stock's 243 lb-ft, just grab another gear before 6300RPM and keep on flying using the AJ tune.

Q4:"If a quarter mile calculator says bert's aka Highline cady's DHS is producing 320HP out of a VIN Y 275 hp motor on my tune is it correct?" Ans. Yes, or at least pretty close. The torque math equation above tells us that if torque goes up under constant conditions such as same RPM engine, car tires, etc. than so does HP. Math is math and you can't beat it unless it's done wrong, in which case it's not math Basically, it's garbage in gets garbage out, but one can put stock in math if one takes the time using decent numbers under similar conditions. You and Bert have shown this by running undeniably faster times than stock using same car, same driver, same tires, same day, and same math/quarter mile calculator - so you must be making more power with your tune.

This is not an advertisement, I'm just an enthusiast -- so here's my questions

1) Why do we all sometimes fruitlessly waste our time asking ourselves: "WTF was GM thinking?" Maybe their just building cars to satisfy the majority of customers who might not all be "hard-core" power-addicted enthusiasts.

2) Do dyno numbers give the real numbers we're interested in? Half the graphs I see don't cross near 5252 RPM. Tires and drivetrain, no air resistance, torque control systems, etc can interfere with comparing one car to another when measuring from the wheel.

3) Can AJ get that torque delivered signal to 99% for our PCMs? This comes from Q1, all the extra mod Qs, etc. The N* may truly be a wicked enthusiast motor. The graph attached below as: AJ max torque signal.jpg

I'm not writing this stuff to be an ass or endorse product. I think enthusiasts should stick together instead of ripping each other apart. We're not really that big of a family and the market is limited. You'd be far richer tuning for a host of other vehicles - most of us need to keep our day jobs and remain enthusiasts doing it for fun and having fun along the way.

Re: 93 to 95 Northstar Tuning

Q1: "If your PCM is limiting you to XXX ft lbs torque and you build the motor to make 5000 ft lbs how much torque will the PCM allow?" Ans. XXX ft lbs.

Q2:"If you make 100 hp at 2000 rpm and 275hp at 6000 stock Y engine SAE report
If I can make 130 to 150 hp at 2000 and 275 at 6000 does it make more power? Ans. Yes, because, over time (i.e., the rev band or power band) you make more power over stock because Torque = (HPx5252)/RPM. Low down at 2000 RPM you're making from 341 ft-lbs (@130 HP) to 394 ft-lbs (@150HP) compared to stock of 263 ft-lbs. At 6000 RPM both tuned and stock motors share 240.7 ft-lbs. A quick linear graph (attached below as: VIN Y motor (stock vs AJxtcman).gif) shows more torque over RPM (i.e., rev band or power band) for the tuned motor (please note: this graph is way over-simplified with no curves but proves the point nonetheless). For reference, a 1994 VIN Y puts out max 300 ft-lbs at 4400 RPM, which doesn't help the stock motor's situation when comparing it to the tuned motors.

Q3:"If you make 80hp @ 200 and 292 @ 6300 Stock 9 engine SAE report
If I make 130hp to 150 hp @ 2000 and 275hp @ 6300 does mine make less power?" Ans. I'm tired, but it looks like the same situation as Q2, AJ's tune wins the game by using the same old torque math equation above. For the stock "9" engine: 80HP@2000RPM = 210 lb-ft and 292HP@6300RPM = 243 lb-ft. For the AJ-tuned "9" engine: 130-150HP@2000RPM = 341-394 lb-ft, respectively and 275HP@6300 = 229 lb-ft. Who care's if torque is puking out at 229 vs the stock's 243 lb-ft, just grab another gear before 6300RPM and keep on flying using the AJ tune.

Q4:"If a quarter mile calculator says bert's aka Highline cady's DHS is producing 320HP out of a VIN Y 275 hp motor on my tune is it correct?" Ans. Yes, or at least pretty close. The torque math equation above tells us that if torque goes up under constant conditions such as same RPM engine, car tires, etc. than so does HP. Math is math and you can't beat it unless it's done wrong, in which case it's not math Basically, it's garbage in gets garbage out, but one can put stock in math if one takes the time using decent numbers under similar conditions. You and Bert have shown this by running undeniably faster times than stock using same car, same driver, same tires, same day, and same math/quarter mile calculator - so you must be making more power with your tune.

This is not an advertisement, I'm just an enthusiast -- so here's my questions

1) Why do we all sometimes fruitlessly waste our time asking ourselves: "WTF was GM thinking?" Maybe their just building cars to satisfy the majority of customers who might not all be "hard-core" power-addicted enthusiasts.

2) Do dyno numbers give the real numbers we're interested in? Half the graphs I see don't cross near 5252 RPM. Tires and drivetrain, no air resistance, torque control systems, etc can interfere with comparing one car to another when measuring from the wheel.

3) Can AJ get that torque delivered signal to 99% for our PCMs? This comes from Q1, all the extra mod Qs, etc. The N* may truly be a wicked enthusiast motor. The graph attached below as: AJ max torque signal.jpg

I'm not writing this stuff to be an ass or endorse product. I think enthusiasts should stick together instead of ripping each other apart. We're not really that big of a family and the market is limited. You'd be far richer tuning for a host of other vehicles - most of us need to keep our day jobs and remain enthusiasts doing it for fun and having fun along the way.

Re: 93 to 95 Northstar Tuning

"So how does that 5250 thing work again?"

Just fine. The last graph crosses at 2125 RPM because Torque (lelft side) is 2x Hp (right side) on the y-axis of the graph. Torque = HP = ~410 for this motor at 5250 RPM so it's good SAE stuff - they got to get paid too. My fault though as I misrepresented the crossing idea.
Revised crossing idea designed to increase viewer confusion of how I interpret dyno graphs : the graph's Y axis units for HP and Torque must be demarcated the same and in units of Lb-ft and James Watt's definition of horsepower . Now I have to call my lawyer, because I'll be in trouble with everybody.

Re: 93 to 95 Northstar Tuning

Originally Posted by med

"So how does that 5250 thing work again?"

Just fine. The last graph crosses at 2125 RPM because Torque (lelft side) is 2x Hp (right side) on the y-axis of the graph. Torque = HP = ~410 for this motor at 5250 RPM so it's good SAE stuff - they got to get paid too. My fault though as I misrepresented the crossing idea.
Revised crossing idea designed to increase viewer confusion of how I interpret dyno graphs : the graph's Y axis units for HP and Torque must be demarcated the same and in units of Lb-ft and James Watt's definition of horsepower . Now I have to call my lawyer, because I'll be in trouble with everybody.

That last chart has a BIG BLOWER on it. You need an engine hoist to remove it.

Originally Posted by eldorado1

He has not.

So far only one of his customers has been on the dyno, and his PCM lost 30hp from the stock PCM.

Maybe it was faulty this, that or the other.... but until someone else goes on the dyno, we'll never know.

Re: 93 to 95 Northstar Tuning

Well......, we do know a stock 95 Y motor makes 230hp at the wheels and
with a fastchip it makes 245hp on the dyno.

Originally Posted by BlackCaddy87

The chip from fastchip added 15 hp to the wheels and removed my top speed limiter. He had it up to 149 in 3rd gear on the dyno. The horsepower went from 230-245 at the wheels and the torque was 260 on the last pull, I can't remember what it was on the first.